One sentence only answers: best landscape lens

[cdhender]

Ok, I've read so much on every single wide-angle prime/fish/zoom I'm seriously going in circles. One minute the 17-40 is enough, the next I'm looking at the tamron 11-18, the tokina 12-24 or the sigma 15mm fish but then I start thinking about the 10-22. I'm seriously sick of reading all these reviews and threads from last week or six months ago or whatever over and over again and getting nowhere. One thread says "I love this lense". Another says 'I traded that junk last week".

So here's what I'm asking: one sentence only. Simply, just tell me what you'd pick....

Imagine you need to shoot landscapes and architecture (95% outdoor) with your 20D. The most important thing is image quality. You can walk into any camera shop and pick out one lense for free (let's say $1500 max) ONE LENSE ONLY .

What would it be?

(BTW, the other lense in your bag is a 24-70L)

[Toogy]

for a 20D, I would definately choose the 10-22 and I did, my favourite lens.

[Maureen Souza]

I got the 16-35mm/2.8 L........ Have no thoughts of another.

[erik-nl]

Learn how to stitch your images, it will give you breathtaking results.

I use an EF24mm/2.8 in portrait mode and usually take some 5 to 8 overlapping shots.
Manual exposure with an aperture between 5.6 and 8 and RAW will give you the best material to work with.
Convert them to 16-bits TIFF's and stitch them with PTGui (http://www.ptgui.com/).
With this program, and because of the enormous resolution of the stitched image, you can also correct perspective distortion etc., which is vital for architectural images.
After stitching you can then use Photoshop like you do for any other image.
Make sure you have LOTS of RAM in your PC though.

The advantages of this method are obvious:
it is the only way to get images with enough resolution for big prints,
there is enough 'room' for necessary corrections,
soft edges (inevitable with wide angle lenses) of individual shots are eliminated,
you can make the angle of view as wide as you want, using a moderate focal length lens.

The speed of the 20D is essential with this technique because of moving clouds and changing light.
For me it was the reason to buy one.

Good luck on your quest!

[schmoelzel]

Don't do much landscape but if I did I have the 16-35f2.8 L to go wide.

[roanjohn]

14 2.8 L!!!! :-)

.............cuz I already have the 17-40.

Ro1

[Belmondo]

A few people have already mentioned the 16-35L, and that is what I normally use, although I also have an EF 14mm f/2.8L, but I don't know how you've set up your budget, so the 17-40 is a very fine alternative to the 16-35L even though it isn't as fast, but since I'm limited to just one sentence, I won't dwell any deeper into the subject than this even though I could probably think of more to say, but rules are rules, and in this thread, you're setting the rules.

[schmoelzel]

A few people have already mentioned the 16-35L, and that is what I normally use, although I also have an EF 14mm f/2.8L, but I don't know how you've set up your budget, so the 17-40 is a very fine alternative to the 16-35L even though it isn't as fast, but since I'm limited to just one sentence, I won't dwell any deeper into the subject than this even though I could probably think of more to say, but rules are rules, and in this thread, you're setting the rules.

:eek: yikes.....are you as out of breath as I am after reading that sentence!!!

[Belmondo]

:eek: yikes.....are you as out of breath as I am after reading that sentence!!!
Well, he wanted one sentence. :lol:

[psk4363]

16-35 f2.8L or 17-40 f4L (depending on budget).

Barry

[khiromu]

TS-E24?? Anyone?

[cdhender]

LOL, you guys are funny. I set the rules like this because every thread everyone comes in and says "Well, you could get this...or this....or this".

I want a definitive answer. What would YOU buy if it was YOUR money. That's it! That's all I want to know.

So far the 16-35 seems to be a popular choice. However, remember I'm pretty much only using this outdoors, so I don't need the speed. How is the image quality of the 16-35 vs. the 17-40 at equal apertures? (You can write more than one sentence if you answer this one :D )

[Belmondo]

TS-E24?? Anyone?

Technically, that's two sentences, so you'll have to practice your run-on phrasing, but I have the TS-E24, but don't use it much for landscape because it doesn't autofocus and I have better lenses for the job, but it is helpful where there's a lot of distortion, especially with vertical lines as you might find with buildings, etcetera.

[CyberDyneSystems]

There is no best landscape lens, as landscapes can be taken with many focal lengths, including long telephotos.

[Tom W]

:eek: yikes.....are you as out of breath as I am after reading that sentence!!!

Breathe at the commas!

[Simon Spiers]

Buy the Tamron 17-35 f2.8 di OK

[roanjohn]

LOL, you guys are funny. I set the rules like this because every thread everyone comes in and says "Well, you could get this...or this....or this".

I want a definitive answer. What would YOU buy if it was YOUR money. That's it! That's all I want to know.

So far the 16-35 seems to be a popular choice. However, remember I'm pretty much only using this outdoors, so I don't need the speed. How is the image quality of the 16-35 vs. the 17-40 at equal apertures? (You can write more than one sentence if you answer this one :D )

I have the 17-40........and I seriously don't even think about the 16-35. The 17-40 is already sharp at f4.............and it just gets better.

Look at this indoor shot I took using the 17-40 wide open:

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/38755404

It's resized, but if you look at the full size image, you will see details even on the corners..............

About the only advantage the 16-35 has is the speed........something you don't really need when shooting outdoors. OTOH, the 17-40 gives you a longer reach.............and some extra cash in your wallet for some filters!!!

So there..........:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Thanks goodness I can elaborate on this one.

Ro1

[cdhender]

About the only advantage the 16-35 has is the speed........something you don't really need when shooting outdoors. OTOH, the 17-40 gives you a longer reach.............and some extra cash in your wallet for some filters!!!


Ro1

Actually, that extra cash would go into the '135 f/2 savings fund' :D

My only hesitation in getting the 17-40 is I feel like I'd be paying $650 essentially for 7 mm (because I have a 24-70L on the way, which I've heard is sharper at equal FLs). OTOH, having the overlap may not be that bad b/c I wouldn't have to change lenses.

This is seriously driving me nuts. I feel like I should just pick one and go with it and be done with it ya know... I mean, really, I feel like I'm making this more complicated than it is. But at the same time, it's my hard earned dollars we're talking about, and I don't have a money tree to shake like some of you :D

[Tom W]

I've owned or presently own the Canon 17-40, 16-35, 20, Sigma 20/1.8, and the Canon 15mm fisheye, so I've seen a fair collection of wide lenses - my choice is the 17-40 unless you find that you need to use f/2.8 at the wide end. The primes are both pretty good IMHO, and the fisheye is very good.

Don't sweat the overlap - sometimes, you'll want to take the wider lens with you and other times, the 24-70. Both cover the "normal" focal length so you have 2 good choices.

[rdenney]

So here's what I'm asking: one sentence only. Simply, just tell me what you'd pick....

(This doesn't count against my one sentence: How is that going to end your confusion? Only you know what kind of look you want.)

I would never think the 16 is wide enough for interiors and would therefore want something wider, and the fisheye is magnificent for many things but rarely for architecture with its straight lines, so I would look for a rectilinear wide-angle lens shorter than 16mm, and if image quality is paramount, forget zooms in this range, so what you need is a 14mm/2.8L, but that blows your $1500 budget by several hundred bucks, plus I bet that image quality isn't really as paramount as you say compared with versatility and price, so I would get the 10-22 in hearbeat, because if you don't like it you can sell the damn thing for at least 80% of what you paid, and the only reason I didn't get that lens is that I have a 10D, so I got the Sigma 12-24 and it's fine for prints up to 8x12, which is all the bigger I make anyway because if I need bigger prints for architectural work I'm better off using a shift lens in medium format or a view camera, and oh, by the way, get the 17-40/4L also and you'll still be close to your budget; why buy a camera with interchangeable lenses if you are just going to use one lens?

Rick "who thinks you should be careful what you ask for" Denney

[ed2day]

17-40 is perfect for what I do and I'd pick it over the 16-35 for the lighter weight.

BTW my 17-40 is sharper than my 24-70 at equal focal lengths from what I've seen so far.

[Belmondo]

I would never think the 16 is wide enough for interiors and would therefore want something wider, and the fisheye is magnificent for many things but rarely for architecture with its straight lines, so I would look for a rectilinear wide-angle lens shorter than 16mm, and if image quality is paramount, forget zooms in this range, so what you need is a 14mm/2.8L, but that blows your $1500 budget by several hundred bucks, plus I bet that image quality isn't really as paramount as you say compared with versatility and price, so I would get the 10-22 in hearbeat, because if you don't like it you can sell the damn thing for at least 80% of what you paid, and the only reason I didn't get that lens is that I have a 10D, so I got the Sigma 12-24 and it's fine for prints up to 8x12, which is all the bigger I make anyway because if I need bigger prints for architectural work I'm better off using a shift lens in medium format or a view camera, and oh, by the way, get the 17-40/4L also and you'll still be close to your budget; why buy a camera with interchangeable lenses if you are just going to use one lens?

Masterful......the soul of brevity!!!

[HJMinard]

Canon EF-S 10-22

[Huckaback Photo]

If your looking for some drama in your landscapes get yourself a sigma 14mm F 2.8, its a cracking lens, what you already have is the other good choice 24-70 L.

CDS
totally agree with you there is no best landscape lens.
fortunately we all see images differently , some through wide lenses and some through telephoto,
the decision is ours.

Martin (Huckaback Photo)
My Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/huckaback_photo

[sodakred]

Using a 20D, and with the 24-70 in the stable...I would go with the 10-22 and enjoy the versatility at the really wide end.

[lkorell]

In one sentence, if you are intensely serious about landscapes a Linhof Technika with a Schneider Super Angulon lens would be the tool of choice, but since you are shooting 35mm digital I wouldn't hesitate to use the 17-40L as it is a very good lens for almost anything and you don't need anything fast because it needs to be sharp.

:D
Lou

[lkorell]

In reply to my last post, it needs to be sharp if your intending to shoot a natural vision of landscapes. If you want an artsy, blurry, dreamy, soft, etc, etc, landscape then it might be fun to use a wider aperture and experiment.


Lou

[shiato storm]

best landscape lens in one word answer?
mine.

[jukas]

Actually, that extra cash would go into the '135 f/2 savings fund' :D

My only hesitation in getting the 17-40 is I feel like I'd be paying $650 essentially for 7 mm (because I have a 24-70L on the way, which I've heard is sharper at equal FLs). OTOH, having the overlap may not be that bad b/c I wouldn't have to change lenses.

This is seriously driving me nuts. I feel like I should just pick one and go with it and be done with it ya know... I mean, really, I feel like I'm making this more complicated than it is. But at the same time, it's my hard earned dollars we're talking about, and I don't have a money tree to shake like some of you :D

Keep in mind however on the 20D you have the 1.6 crop. So really the $650 is for a 27 - 64 vs 38.4 - 112. If you only shoot outdoors or always use a tripod get the 17 - 40. If you want the extra stop get the 16 - 35.

If it was my money, I'd get the 16 - 35. I like the extra stop and I've heard it's slightly sharper edge to edge.

[cdhender]

best landscape lens in one word answer?
mine.

The 17-35 sigma? Is that what you're recommending? Seriously?

[roanjohn]

OK, stupid me for not realizing that you already have the 24-70!!!! DUH!!! That is actually one reason why I didn't buy that lens (24-70) - because of the overlap from my 17-40............and also that it is one heavy lens..........

Although I would still recommend the 17-40 as it is a cracking lens, I would now lean more towards the 10-22 EF-S!!! Or the Canon fisheye............

Ro1

[rdenney]

In one sentence, if you are intensely serious about landscapes a Linhof Technika with a Schneider Super Angulon lens would be the tool of choice, but since you are shooting 35mm digital I wouldn't hesitate to use the 17-40L as it is a very good lens for almost anything and you don't need anything fast because it needs to be sharp.

Oh, I would think you could use just about any decent field or view camera instead of the Linhof and still be serious. But I agree about the Super Angulons.

Rick "who has SA's in 47, 65, 90, and 121mm" Denney

[mbze430]

CY Zeiss 21mm Distagon!!

[Sicily1918]

This should have had a VOTE function :)

My one-sentence answer:

I would get the 10-22mm (and I did -- walked into Samy's, tried it on, bought it right there).

On the 20D, it's a 16-35 equivalent and mine's sharp as a tack and fast-focus.

The 17-40L is nice (and it's an L), but w/the crop you're looking at 27-64 and w/out the crop, the L is still not as wide on a FF as the 10-22 is on the 20D.

[ssim]

Technically, that's two sentences, so you'll have to practice your run-on phrasing, but I have the TS-E24, but don't use it much for landscape because it doesn't autofocus and I have better lenses for the job, but it is helpful where there's a lot of distortion, especially with vertical lines as you might find with buildings, etcetera.

I would choose the 16-35 f2.8L because I have it and it is awesome but Mr. Belmondo, you will be the butt of everyones jokes because you can use the word but so eloquently.http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif

[Belmondo]

I would choose the 16-35 f2.8L because I have it and it is awesome but Mr. Belmondo, you will be the butt of everyones jokes because you can use the word but so eloquently.http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif

But I know so few words, 'but' just comes in handy.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Alright, if I had a $1,500 dollar budget for a wide angle lens my choice would be the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L. Why? Because of it's superior image quality! I've never owned the lens, but I've read many reviews, and this lens is said to be amungst the best. I'd sertainly question myself though, because the 17-40 is a lot cheaper, and for landscape f/2.8 isn't really needed, but I've seen image results from both lenses and the 16-35 definately out performs the 17-40. That and it's slightly bigger, heavier, feels and looks more impressive. It's all about the feel. :)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-16-35mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx
This might help.

If I had the cash to blow, the 16-35 would be in my camera bag no doubt about it. So go for it.;)

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Aw, crap, just noticed you have the 24-70L. In that case, it only makes sense to get the 10-22mm. Way too much over lap otherwise, and if your not finding 24mm wide enough, I highly doubt you'll be saticefied by either 17 or 16mm...... so, final vote goes for the 10-22mm. :-)

[Lesmac]

17-40 L is the way to go
Les

http://lesmclean.photoblink.com/

[psk4363]

Look at this indoor shot I took using the 17-40 wide open:

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/38755404



About the only advantage the 16-35 has is the speed........something you don't really need when shooting outdoors.

Ro1

I partially disagree in that I used to have the 17-40 and it is tack-sharp from the outset. But then so is the 16-35 and, believe it or not, the extra 1mm at the wide end (1.6mm on a 20D) does make a difference. See: -

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

In particular read his conclusion. This is what persuaded me to sell the 17-40 and get the 16-35 and I have no regrets whatsoever. The extra speed is great, even in a landscape situation as it allows you to use a faster shutter speed to restrict movement of foliage, etc.

Barry

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

O_O..... Lesmac, you are the god of landscape photography..... o_o.....

[C.S.I.]

Whats the matter with the stock 18-55? Every time I get the itch to buy the 17-40, I just take another great shot with my stock lens.....maybe Im just lucky and wound up with some sharp glass......:lol:

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

It flares......

[chtgrubbs]

Canon 10-22 would cover the most used focal lengths that I use in film cameras.

[digitaltourist]

LOL, you guys are funny. I set the rules like this because every thread everyone comes in and says "Well, you could get this...or this....or this".

I want a definitive answer. What would YOU buy if it was YOUR money. That's it! That's all I want to know.

So far the 16-35 seems to be a popular choice. However, remember I'm pretty much only using this outdoors, so I don't need the speed. How is the image quality of the 16-35 vs. the 17-40 at equal apertures? (You can write more than one sentence if you answer this one :D )

For the 20D I would get the 10-22 since I already have the 17-40 (I love and highly recommend this lens as well). :-) If you plan on moving to a non-EFS mount camera in the future the investment in the 17-40 or 16-35 may be more prudent.

[drisley]

O_O..... Lesmac, you are the god of landscape photography..... o_o.....
I agree! :eek:
Those pictures are stunning!

[SkipD]

The best landscape lens would be my 12-1200mm f1.0 (which weighs in at about 1.5 pounds), but you can't have that lens because it exists in my dreams - attached to my 1Ds Mark IV - and I won't give it up.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

I have a 10-2400mm f/1.0 DO IS lens that I made myself out of paper and coke bottles.:cool:

[Sean-Mcr]

I had the 16-35 i bought it for when i came in doors as i'm in to available light. Too soft at 2.8 and often not fast enough for the light i like shoot in. Almost twice as much for the extra stop but you dont get twice the performance in my opinion. I'd maybe get the 17-40 and a prime..

No point to be honest giving one sentance, you've read reviews to death no doubt. It's all mainly subjective be it said in a sentance or paragraph, one is no more valid then the other

[foxbat]

It flares......It flares because it doesn't come with a hood. All wide angle lenses used without a hood will flare. It doesn't cost much to buy a generic 58mm hood, something which Canon should have provided as part of the kit.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Woah, so many people say the 16-35 is soft at f/2.8..... that stinks.... all that extra cash for the extra stop and it's not even sharp wide open. Seems like a waste to me.

[drisley]

Rbr, I just noticed this too.
Then there is schmoelzel, who says his 16-35L lens is beautifully sharp wide open, sharper than the 50/1.8II at similar apertures.
I definately believe him too. It almost seems that Canon has a quality control issue with this lens, or different peole have very different ideas about what is soft.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yea, true.... guess it's an opinion type thing. I would sertainly hope that a lens with a $1,400 price tag is sharp at it's max apeture..... probably would be more than sharp enough for me! :-)

[Sydor25]

EF-S 10-22mm. It was my favorite lens when walking around Boston. There would have been a lot of shots missed with a 16-35mm or 17-40mm lens. The 10-16mm portion of the EF-S lens is perfect for the 20D.

[Lesmac]

I agree entirely with the view that for landscapes the 17-40 is a better bet than 16-35. Fast lenses are not usually required for this kind of situation. The 10-22 is a lot more difficult choice, I love the 17-40 on my 1DS MKII, the full 17mm is wonderful. In theory, the 10-22 on a 20D should give you a similar dimension taking into account the 20D crop factor, however, a friend has this combination, and reports that there is a fair amount of distortion at the 10mm end, and most filters cause vignetting.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Yea, lots of people report distortion on the 10mm end with the 10-22, but most say they like that. Add's an artistic, creative look to the photograph. It depends on if you like that sort of thing.

[I Simonius]

My best landscape lens would be the 17-40 on a full frame camera and 10-22 on a 1.6 sensor: the 17-40 has a good track record for quality but unfortunately the 10-22 has a few question marks in that area, if it had the same reputation as the 17-40 i wouldn't hesitate, but as it doesn't I must say that my favourite landscape Canon lens doesn't exist.

[xstrio]

for about $1500 dollars why not get the 10-22 and the 17-40

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hahahaha, very good point xstrio!!! That's actually a good idea too. If I had the cash, i'd prolly try that combo.

[I Simonius]

I partially disagree in that I used to have the 17-40 and it is tack-sharp from the outset. But then so is the 16-35 and, believe it or not, the extra 1mm at the wide end (1.6mm on a 20D) does make a difference. See: -

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml

In particular read his conclusion. This is what persuaded me to sell the 17-40 and get the 16-35 and I have no regrets whatsoever. The extra speed is great, even in a landscape situation as it allows you to use a faster shutter speed to restrict movement of foliage, etc.

Barry

Surely the comparison made is between the OLD 17-35 and the 16-35 NOT the 17-40?

[JDM EG6]

I cant belive I read that all and no one mentioned the sigma 12-24. Its a amazing lens with outstanding build quliaty. It is Probably one of the most sharp lens for that wide of a angle that you will find with out seeing flare or discolouration in corners at such a wide angle.

Oh well, to each their own but dont forget about that lens and the price is just right, yes I wish it was 2.8 as well but again, Id be dreaming right now.